# What seemingly rational or normal beliefs of today will be discredited in 100 years? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2003, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411 "2003-05-20T22:40:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/81 "2003-05-22T02:02:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > **Did it ever occur to him that he made a mistake? “I got a different answer from everybody else so everybody else must be wrong!” He sounds like a quack or at least a bit of a nut.** He is in fact a tenured, published fluid dynamicist. No offense, but if I had to choose between his opinion and your opinion on a matter of fluid dynamics (such as this) I would be more inclined to choose his opinion. But lucky for me I’m not choosing between his opinion and your opinion. I was just trying to explain to you how someone might disagree with the Bernoulli explanation of airplane flight. And as other posters have pointed out, he’s not the only one to question Bernoulli’s effect on this issue, pardon the wordplay. \*\* > [@](#): > > (I.e., “I don’t understand how airplanes can fly using Bernouli’s principle and therefore I don’t believe they can even though there are lots of people who have worked through this and even built airplanes based on these equations.”) \*\* That’s the thing…_do_ airplane wings get built “based on these equations”? Or do they get built based on engineering principles and wind-tunnel experiments? I was under the impression that calculating the effect of air flow on an airplane wing, say via a computer simulation, was something that’s only been possible in the last decade or so. Which would seem to imply that airplane wings have not been designed from “first principles” for most of this century. The fact that airplane wings work does not imply that we know exactly how they work. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/82 "2003-05-22T02:48:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toadspittle \* > **Oh, good. Enough of this democracy and liberty and middle-class wealth. Back to feudalism and peasantry and aristocracy and slavery!** I think there is a very significant danger of exactly that happening. Some people will argue, toad, that it is already happening, with power being transferred to transnational supercompanies, democratic governments becoming more alienated from the people, middle class disappearing - I’m not saying I necessarily buy it. But you cannot deny it is possible that democracy could fade. Liberal democracy was on life support as recently as 1942. As a movement it is at most 200 years old. It’s certainly quite reasonable to suppose that it could be replaced by something else, perhaps a movement or type of organization of a new sort. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/83 "2003-05-22T03:36:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor \* > Genetically-based depression is pretty much an accepted fact, last time I checked, & I see little reason to believe otherwise. \*\* Ummm… isn’t the status of “an accepted fact” exactly what makes it the kind of thing that OP is looking for? Almost by definition, the OP is asking us to contradict what the experts and the current evidence indicates. ---
**Author:** ![SpartanDC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b2d939/32.png) [@SpartanDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpartanDC)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/84 "2003-05-22T03:39:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by qts \* > \*\*Except that evidence for the nuclear family goes back at least 2000 years - Jesus, Joseph, and Mary for one family, and assorted documented Roman families (q.v. Julius Caesar) - if not from the dawn of time. Though I can’t bring to mind a cite from Classical Greece, their culture was based on the nuclear family; the Egyptian Pharoahs seemed to have fairly nuclear families. The trouble here is that ancient texts tend to deal with monarchs who by virtue of their position, tended to have more than one wife, not to mention numerous slaves. \*\* I agree with your thesis here, but your evidence isn’t working for me. The first example you use may not be the literal truth. The other ones are all based on affluent families, who didn’t need tons of kids to plant the crops, till the soil, run the family business, etc. Now, of course, most families have no need for a lot of kids. I don’t see why they ever will again. So while I think _acceptance_ of so-called nontraditional families will increase, I don’t think anyone will start looking down on the nuclear family, and it may very well continue to be the ideal. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/85 "2003-05-22T04:07:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SNenc \* > **The first example you use may not be the literal truth. The other ones are all based on affluent families, who didn’t need tons of kids to plant the crops, till the soil, run the family business, etc.** I think we’re being pedantic here … there are plenty of ancient texts depicting the nuclear family as a norm. I rather think the burden of proof falls on those who would assert that it is an industrial age thing. Which isn’t to say that it won’t change in the future. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/86 "2003-05-22T04:16:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Super Gnat \* > \*\*There will arise a movement advocating children’s sexual rights. \*\* I think you’re right. Age-of-consent laws are arbitrary and based on cultural consensus; moreover the current ones are high by historical standards. I also do not doubt that pedophiles will use this to seek tolerance. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/87 "2003-05-22T04:39:36Z")
I predict not one thing mentioned in this thread will come true. Except the predictions diametrically opposed by other predictions. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/88 "2003-05-22T05:20:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > I hope in 100 years time it will not be acceptable to deny people any rights, including the right to live/work where ever they please, on account of their nationality. I certainly already find it very immoral and something which should be ended ASAP. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by A Monkey With a Gun \* > \*\*How would this work? Honestly, I can’t see how. > Are you saying that nationality will mean nothing? The only way I can see that happening is if the world evolves a united, global wide government. Otherwise, how would you sort out the tax base? What would the basis for citizenship be if it offered no priviledges over non-citizens? I am not necessarily disagreeing, I am just asking for elaboration. \*\* I’m glad **sailor** brought up this one, because it was the first thing that I thought of on reading the OP as well… There’s no incompatibility between having separate nation-states and having any particular nation-state treat all people alike, whether or not they were born within the nation’s borders. And we already have a model for how to do it - State governments (that is, state-state rather than nation-state, if you see what I mean…) already manage to have their own laws, and their own taxes, without caring a bean if the person they’re applying the laws to was born inside or outside their own boundaries. Also, the question of taxes etc is one that _already_ has to be addressed (and is quite successfully addressed, all the time) in the case of people with work visas. The only step which would have to be changed is the bit where the government grants permission for a person to come and work - in a “citizenship-neutral” system, permission would automatically be granted, all the time. Now how we \* get to \* such a system from the one we have presently is a whole different kettle of fish - and one which presents significant challenges (though it’s not nearly so difficult, IMO, as people make out). But that’s a question of practicality, not morals - even if it turned out that there was no way to remove citizenship barriers and retain civilisation-as-we-know it, that doesn’t change the fact that (IMO, again) to treat people differently from other people based on stuff they _have no control over_ (race, sex, nationality, eye colour, whatever-the-hell) is fundamentally immoral, and I hope that people in a hundred years’ time will recognise that. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/89 "2003-05-22T06:53:05Z")
I have a few, just predictions: 1. The current administration’s story about September 11, 2001. 2. The current administration’s reasons for invading Iraq. 3. Our system of advertising/marketing/brainwash. 4. Saddam Hussein, Osama, al Qaeda. 5. Guantanamo Bay, Camp Rhino. 6. Mad Cow/BSE. 7. HIV/AIDS. 8. SARS. B ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/90 "2003-05-22T14:34:01Z")
I agree with several other commentors on this thread that many of these predictions are projections of our desires or preferences and are not based on sound reasoning. The one that gets me is the prediction that religion will cease to become important. I think we are greatly misled by our largely Western Christian perspective. We see the weakining of Christian influence in Western Europe as evidence of the decline of organized religion. Islam, and I dont mean just the fundamentalist bent, has greatly increased in power and spread over the globe in the last fifty years. This is not going away. Not to mention that many of these Muslim countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria) are growing much faster than the world average. My one predicition is that in the ‘first world’ we will face immense problems dealing with the increase in average life span. As the median age goes higher we will have to redefine such concepts as retirement and old age. I freely admit I am worried that the major diseases of old age will be cured leaving nations of old people. The current official policies of many health organizations is to increase the median lifespan. We have been very successful thus far and I don’t see an end coming anytime soon. At some point we will have to deal with this phenomenon. ---
**Author:** ![SpartanDC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b2d939/32.png) [@SpartanDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpartanDC)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/91 "2003-05-22T14:48:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. B \* > \*\*I have a few, just predictions: > > 1. Mad Cow/BSE. > 2. HIV/AIDS. > 3. SARS. > > B \*\* Are you saying we’re going to realize these were all frauds or something? All of those diseases may well be erradicated, but the OP is about ideas and beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![occ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8c91f0/32.png) [@occ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/occ)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/92 "2003-05-22T16:20:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. B \* > \*\*I have a few, just predictions: > > 1. The current administration’s story about September 11, 2001. > 2. The current administration’s reasons for invading Iraq. > 3. Our system of advertising/marketing/brainwash. > 4. Saddam Hussein, Osama, al Qaeda. > 5. Guantanamo Bay, Camp Rhino. > 6. Mad Cow/BSE. > 7. HIV/AIDS. > 8. SARS. > > B \*\* What exactly do you mean by numbers 6, 7, and 8? That these diseases/syndromes will be shown to not exist? Further, several other things here don’t really make sense in the context of the OP. How do nos. 4-8 follow, in the context of the OP? ---
**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/93 "2003-05-22T16:23:11Z")
Peanut butter (Yeuch!) Marmite (double Yeuch!) ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/94 "2003-05-22T16:55:47Z")
1. The current administration’s story about September 11, 2001. Just like Single Gun Theory is widely disbelieved. 2. The current administration’s reasons for invading Iraq. History tells us hegemony is to blame, in 100 years, what will they think of us? 3. Our system of advertising/marketing/brainwash. In 100 years, people will look in stunned silence at the types of advertising and brainwash to which we’re currently subjected. 4. Saddam Hussein, Osama, al Qaeda. In 100 years, they will all be known as Lee Harveys at best, at worst, known accomplices. 5. Guantanamo Bay, Camp Rhino. Future people will look at this as the beginning of fascism, ethnic cleansing and general sad times for human rights. 6. Mad Cow/BSE. All voodoo – no human impact of this disease (Creutzfeldt-Jakob notwithstanding), but in 100 years, people will say “these idiots were poisoning their own food supply.” 7. HIV/AIDS. No connection. In 100 years it will be widely known that AIDS is a “human cleanser” and HIV is a vector for sale of redundant immunosuppressors AZT and others. See “Inventing the AIDS Virus,” Peter H. Duesberg, for more information. 8. SARS. Socio-political-economic warfare. You heard it here first. ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/95 "2003-05-22T17:39:38Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Saddam Hussein, Osama, al Qaeda. > In 100 years, they will all be known as Lee Harveys at best, at worst, known accomplices > [@](#): > > 1. HIV/AIDS. > No connection. In 100 years it will be widely known that AIDS is a “human cleanser” and HIV is a vector for sale of redundant immunosuppressors AZT and others. See “Inventing the AIDS Virus,” Peter H. Duesberg, for more information. Y’know Mr. B thanks a lot. I write a on point and well reasoned post on topic. Like most of us I’m checking back hoping someone will have a comment, argument etc. Is that going to happen now? Hmmm? I think not. Now we have to do battle with your post. I will start with points 4 and 8 because I’m lazy and they are the easiest. 1. This is easy because the sentence makes no sense. Lee Harvey’s at best? Accomplices at worst? Was this translated from Farsi or something? Please elucidate. 2. I will withhold judgement on this one until you answer this question. Warfare on whom by whom? By the US on China and Canada? By Jamaica on Mongolia? At least let us know who the players are. ---
**Author:** ![fruitbat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@fruitbat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fruitbat)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/96 "2003-05-22T17:41:32Z")
Oops quoted point seven but addressed eight. Someone else feel free to give an opinion on point eight. ---
**Author:** ![JasonFin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/4af34b/32.png) [@JasonFin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JasonFin)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/97 "2003-05-22T17:51:46Z")
I think 100 years is a sufficiently short timeframe that we can count on technological progress continuing. Predictions based on that fact have a high likelihood of being successful. It seems highly likely that, in 100 years, given any number of possible reasonable advances in computing power, it will be possible to produce artificial intelligences which are human-equivalent or better. Given this, society will confront the problem of what rights should be accorded such intelligences. It is likely that this will be a major issue at some point. If such intelligences are capable of presenting themselves as being emotionally equivalent to humans, then basic empathy will drive most people to respect their claims. It is likely, then, that society will eventually adapt a notion of what beings are deserving of rights that is based on intellectual capacity or some other mental attribute. Bans on abortion are justified based on the assumption that entities gain their rights as a result of being biologically human. This idea is incompatible with the possession of rights by nonbiological intelligent entities. To avoid obvious inconsistency, society must choose one basis or the other. It is also likely that continued advances in biology will reduce the perceived specialness of a human organism developing in utero. Already we are making progress at stimulating stem cells to produce any type of tissue. It is likely that we will gain the capability to create a viable embryo from ordinary cells present in a single adult, and to cause embryonic cells to develop into something other that a full organism. Eventually it will be clear that there is no fundamental biological distinction between a developing fetus and any other type of human tissue. This will make it more difficult to assert that a fundamental moral distinction exists based on biology. For these reasons, I believe it is almost inevitable that the taboo against abortion will eventually die out in advanced societies. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/98 "2003-05-22T18:10:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Francis E Dec, Esq \* > But it is not conventional wisdom and does not have authority. I don’t know what its origins are but physicists and other aerodynamics experts today agree that the Bernoulli effect plays little part in flight (at least, that was my impression when I was working in an academic physics department). Google Bernoulli and airplane and you’ll see. A very detailed discussion by experts is here: [http://www.aa.washington.edu/faculty/eberhardt/lift.htm](http://www.aa.washington.edu/faculty/eberhardt/lift.htm) After looking at your links and the one from **Orbifold** and others, I see your guys point here (although I am still somewhat skeptical of some of the stronger claims that were made). It does seem that airplane flight is a case where the full equations (what your link calls “the mathematical aerodynamics descriptions” is reasonably well understood but where it is hard to separate the different simple physical effects in these equations to get an intuitive feel of what is going on. So, the assignment of “Bernoulli’s Principle” as the single, or perhap even major, component of lift in all cases seems to be an oversimplification. You learn something new every day! ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/99 "2003-05-22T18:15:35Z")
Dear Fruitbat, I am sorry you don’t like my post. I will refrain from posting such “hard” topics in the future; next time I’ll submit something acceptably insipid. On to your questions: 4. You are familiar with Lee Harvey Oswald? It is generally accepted by many that he is/was a patsy? 1. Who has suffered the most from this “epidemic?” Why are there not a reasonable amount of cases in the US or other “western” countries? (Go to the WHO web site for a list.) Only one of about 1,000 ways they’ve suffered – Quick multiple choice: was is a) United Airlines or b) China Air that has recently risked its stock market listing? [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030516/bs\_afp/health\_sars\_china\_air\_030516073111](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030516/bs_afp/health_sars_china_air_030516073111) Hmmmmmmm. There’s a latin saying for this situation, but I dare not post it. BTW: I don’t see you assaulting posts like “Peanut butter” and “marmite.” ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411/100 "2003-05-22T18:18:48Z")
oops, typo \>\>\>was is a) United Airlines\<\<\< Should read “was **it** a) United Airlines” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-seemingly-rational-or-normal-beliefs-of-today-will-be-discredited-in-100-years/176411.md?page=6)